Facts
In the year 1999, the convicted around 9:15pm reached the doorstep of the deceased who is a sex worker and live in a red light area and she denied performing, and convicted brutally beaten the deceased in a fit of anger and beat her to death banging her head several times on the floor smashing it and thrashed her with hands and legs on the whole body . This was witnessed by the four sex workers. The blood was incessantly oozing out of her nose, head and ear. The deceased was declared dead on arrival. This was a barbaric and heinous incident that happened with one sex worker and got highlighted but every day these incidents take place in red light areas which are often neglected and many more sex worker have lost their lives dues to such incidents and brutal behaviour. The brutality of this case the actual condition of sex worker in our country. Subsequently the convicted were punished under section 302 IPC for imprisoned for life. An appeal was filed by the convicted the SC on 19-10-2011 constituted a panel consisting of Mr. Pradip Ghosh as the chairman of the panel , Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior counsel, Usha Multipurpose Co-operative Society through its President/Secretary, Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee through its President/Secretary, and Roshni through Ms. Saima Hasan.
ISSUE RAISED
Now the issue was not only about the murder but also about the lifestyle of the people in this profession. A constitutional panel was also formed in 2011 to discuss the issues. The panel constituted of Mr. Pradip Ghosh as the chairman, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior counsel etc. some of the issue include:-
- Human trafficking must be prevented.
- Steps must be taken to rehabilitate the sex workers who wish to leave the profession.
- The Indian Constitution grants fundamental rights to all, but it is disheartening to see how certain segments of society have to fight and struggle even for the most basic right to live a dignified life. How can the scope of Article 21 and the meaning of living a life with dignity be applied to sex workers and their offspring.
- How to give the prostitutes a safer atmosphere after saving them? This case demonstrated that the sex workers need a safer location to live because they are not safe in their brothels.
CONTENTION
ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT
- The learned advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently denied all the charges framed by the prosecution.
- The learned advocate submitted the statement made by the eye-witness, Asha khatun during the examination in chief cannot be admissible under section 164 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 as she did not turn up during the cross-examination.
- To substantive the same, the learned advocate relied upon the case of Raghuvir Singh vs State of Uttaranchal.
- It was also submitted that none of the residents of the area where the crime took place were summoned as witnesses. Owing to this reason, the learned advocate wanted to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story.
ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT
- The prosecution case was suggested that the relationship between the deceased and the accused were sour and they quarrelled at intervals.
- The prosecution case produced the injury report made by a competent physician that stated that the deceased was beaten by the accused through fists and legs
- The report also found that there was total of eleven injuries in various parts of the face and forehead that resulted in her death.
- The prosecution contended that eight out of eleven injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
RATIONALE
In order to handle the issue of reintroducing the current prostitutes who are being forced to do the act against their will, the Supreme Court appointed a committee, chaired by Senior Advocate Mr. Pradip Ghosh, with four more members and support staff to help them. The panel’s recommendation is that the Supreme Court approve an aid package worth Rs. 10,00,000 from the Central Government, Rs. 5,00,000 from the State Government, and Rs. 2,00,000 from the UTs. This aid package is intended to support the provision of technical skills and vocational training to sex workers, enabling them to reintegrate into society and support themselves. The courts addressed the first issue by pointing out that, by definition, prostitutes are humans and should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. The Judgement stated, “…No matter the profession, every individual in this country has a right… under Article 21.” The courts interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution to include living a life of dignity and not being in a vegetative state.[4] They further mentioned that because of their great poverty or the belief that they are easy pickings for human traffickers, women in India are usually forced and driven into prostitution and the sex trade. Sexual actions are therefore carried out against their will and most definitely not for their delight because of this.
The Supreme Court also recognizes that eliminating the stigma and reintegrating these sex workers into society would need a number of progressive reforms over time.
Thus for now, the Supreme Court mentioned and asked the Central Government and the State Government to follow 10 recommendations as listed below :
- Immediate medical assistance to be provided to sex workers if they are a victim of any type of sexual assault.
- States are directed to survey all types of immoral trafficking under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
- For the women who were forced to the field and are rescued, they should be kept in protective homes, that is to be built by the State so that they could be thoroughly checked mentally and physically before sending them to their home.
- The police officers, and other government bodies to be more sensible to the sex workers and do not harass them, during raids or any other matter.
- The Press Council to take guidelines for utmost care so that identities of sex workers remain hidden.
- Criminal Action cannot be taken against an adult sex worker who is working under consent.
- Contraceptives and other safety precautions used by sex workers must not be considered as crimes or as proof that a crime has been committed.
- Only the Brothel owner can be arrested and the sex workers cannot be arrested.
- A recommendation committee to be established to prohibit child sex workers.
- The increase in role of sex workers in decision making processes, regarding planning and designing of sex work.
In addition to that the Supreme Court also said, the transgender community and also work as sex workers to earn money. This judgment of SC is highly supported, and believe that this will pave a way to the end of the problems the sex workers are in. However, this judgment has some contradictory parts and defects too, which are discussed as follows.
DEFECTS OF LAW
- Limited accountability for law enforcement: Despite the judgment’s heavy emphasis on raising awareness of abuses by law enforcement, little practical steps have been taken to hold them accountable for any violations of the rights of sex workers. Strict penalties for misconduct must be implemented, accountability mechanisms must be reinforced, and harassment must end in order to ensure the protection of sex workers’ rights.
- Decriminalization of adult sex workers who do voluntary sex work is emphasized in the verdict, although it does not advocate for the decriminalization of sex work in its entirety. Because sex labor is not recognized by law, those who engage in it risk exploitation, abuse, and infringement of their rights.
- Thus, it is evident how the sex trafficking industry is thriving due to legal loopholes and the police department’s limited authority. Furthermore, the majority of the monies intended for the improvement and careful inspection of the brothels to stop these forced laborers are being used for other purposes, which calls for stringent regulations.
Nonetheless, the primary legal flaw is evident in the conflict between some provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and subsequent rulings from the Supreme Court. For instance, Section 3 of the Act limits their freedom of commerce by making it unlawful and punished by law to operate a brothel. Section 4: An adult who relies on prostitution for her income is subject to penalties under this Act. According to Section 8, it is illegal to seduce someone in public for prostitution. The recent ruling that explicitly declares that sex work is regarded as a type of job is hampered by these provisions.
INFERENCE
The court will also take into account the cost of reintegrating these victims into society, while acknowledging the current actions done by the panel and the judiciary in recognizing their identity papers, such as voter identification cards and ration cards. By protecting their interests at work or making sure they receive the financial assistance—loans, rent, mortgages, and the like—transacted to them in order to guarantee they can afford a respectable place to live, a sufficient education, and sanitary living conditions for themselves. Making sure of these would help them act autonomously and freely without needless sympathy or sleight of hand; instead, they would be able to positively acquire possessions and things that are just as much theirs as they are to any other human being.
ANKUSH ANUBHAV BARA
UNIVERSITY LAW COLLEGE,
VINOBA BHAVE UNIVERSITY,
HAZARIBAGH